Political Ideology Input

Hello fellow ATS members!

I'm a political science major at CSU. Exactly what I'm going to do with it I'm not quite sure. That being said, I'm highly interested in developing an unbiased political philosophy. My perspective is that the partisan factions of the right and the left in the United States has been dividing our nation for years. We cannot deal in total absolutes for government because all it does is create narrow minded individuals who hide behind an ideology and won't listen to what others have to say. This being said, I believe we can unite the future generations of our country if we are able to shed this division of the populous.

The people on ATS seem to have good heads on their shoulders and I would greatly appreciate what ever input you would like to give me. Whether it's a political philosophy, or any type of change you would like to see in the domestic and international affairs and policies of the government please feel free to ad your input. If you have input on lobbying, campaign contributions, anything that has to do with the functioning of government please feel free to ad your input and we can have an intellectual conversation. I will ad my perspective if I have my own view on anything that comes up.

I believe representatives should have to answer to their constituents rather than the corporations that helped elect them, and this change is essential in order for our Republic to remain functioning. We need to steer away from this Corporatism, Fascist Theology, or Oligarchy of the rich, however you want to call it. Our republic that our fore fathers fought hard and long for has steered far away from what it was originally intended to become.

Im not american so I cant speak on any of your specific problems but we face a similar situation in the uk. If you wish to improve rather than replace the current systems of goverment and economics I would start by changing how partys campaign. While some may complain of misused taxes I think campaign money should be given from a goverment pot to each party (amount dependent on membership) and as a result NO donations from corporate intrests - a small price to pay for a goverment free of debt to BP etc. To me this is only a starting point as I would like to see this party politics filled 'representitive' democracy with a fairer direct democray system. On economics I favor a lot more regulation, if you've ever heard of the fairtrade program that helps poorer nations farmers earn a fair price when trading with big transnationals I'd like to see thos expanded to all comerce. Profits/markup would be regulated to ensure the original producer recives more money and markup is limited so companys are not making 200% profits ect on already expensive items. This is just the tip of the iceberg though my goal is a gradual transition from capitalisum into a modifyed form of anarcho-communisum. Anyway hope I helped

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


hi friend. I'm a poli-sci guy as well and current law student. once upon a time, I wondered the same thing you're wondering. That's why I switched from a focus in political philosophy to an emphasis on american campaigns and electioneering - to see how a more universalist view could operate and thrive in america. here's what i learned....

the reason for our binary political system is more lame then you think it might be. america differs from every other european country in how large its 2 main political coalitions are and how diverse they are within. why don't our third parties thrive today? the better question is, why have they never thrived?

hate to break it to you but the answer lies in the constitution. its the electoral college. the electoral college preconditions control over the executive branch on a majority of electoral votes. while libertarians might flock to maine or green party supporters might flock to wyoming [just playful examples] to elect local, state and congressional reps, the electoral college system demands a big, big, big tent.

if the electoral college were imposed in,for instance, italy today, nobody would win. so its our structure that causes a bianary system. in america we like to point to extremist ends of both parties to mock or label the party as a whole, but the dirty little secret is, in a different constitutional environment those extremist ends would gladly split themselves off from the party. if a proportional reprasentation system were implemented in america today, chances are the tea party and 9-11 truthers would have good incentive to fully spin off.

this helps explain why europeans who belong to a 'party' are far more idealogical and in unison then their american counter parts. in the uk, a green anywhere is a green. in the united states a democrat from alabama is more likely to disagree with a democrat from maine as he is to disagree with a republican in alabama. our parties have grown massive and relatively non-idealogical to thrive in the environment they live in. this is why both parties strongly support a 'first past the poll' system.

so what changes can we make?

well first, its worth mentioning that this system actually has, in limited effect, the attributes of the solution you look for. the wing-nuts in both party may be well represented as a number but, in reality, are less well represented in congress itself. our 2 parties (which are really more like coalitions) are far more moderate then the parties of almost any other democracy.

note: the republican party is not moderate by any european standards, but that is because of america's unique history. in context of american history, laws, and current political climate the republican and democratic party are both remarkably moderate.

so here's the only conceivable way to create a 'moderate' party in american politics that i think is attainable:

CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, CONSTITUTIONAL-AMENDMENTESQUE, HIGH BAR FOR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT

Work with what god gave you, basically. That is, we already have astoundingly moderate parties because of this electoral college system. So make it even more difficult through constitutionally accepted terms. Make the requirment to be president victory over 2/3 of the votes of the electoral college. How will this work?

Once a party has to attain 2/3 of the electoral college rather then one, the current coalition system of (D and R) will be left scrambling. Incumbants will WANT reelection in the house and senate and will be willing to step outside of their box to get it. Presidential candidates will be forced to distinquish themselves also. Once this starts happening, the parties will start realligning themselves and something new will be born.

Your question assumes that there is some super-majority sitting out there, so why not require the support of that super majority to attain the highest office in the land? Its proven in political science that this water-mark will inform the actions of parties.

Instead of trying to fish out who the moderate majority is, find out through empiricism. Change the electoral process to demand that anyone elected to the executive must be selected by a moderate supermajority, and then that majority will show itself.

pretty intuitive if you ask me.

Explanation: S&F!

A Universal equal opportunity political idealogy...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [un.org]

And an equal opportunity economy...

Hey Presto! Out of Thin Air! A magical new currency and economy! (by OmegaLogos) [ATS]

And an equal opportunity to get involved...

The Plan (by IAMIAM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: I advocate for leaderless democracies... [OL IS a pinko!]

2 Issues for Australians to consider before Election (thread by Dark Ghost , post by OmegaLogos) [ATS]

Personalities, Parties and Politicians come and go and are ALL MSM hyped distractions from the POLICIES which we all have to live with! Lets dump all the distractions and just deal with the duty of care policies we all deserve already! You Know It Make Sense!!!

reply to post by snusfanatic


thank you my friend. i'm working on my concepts of the elections process and your input really helped. I'm specifically focused on a platform that would eliminate corporate campaign contributions so that the voters have the right to choose who they support rather than the same businesses contributing towards campaigns that are the same businesses that advertise on news outlets that control certain perspectives. it seems in our country today government represents big business rather than their constituents which is a sad thing. we need political awakening so that we can 'take our country back' the masses need to voice their own opinions rather than following preconceived and biased ideals

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


I'm currently attending school for Political Science as well.

In my opinion the way to best organize the partisan ideologies is by using the Classical Left-Right Spectrum then take something from each group. That's what I have done.

I have taken my economic position from The Right, which is Protectionism. I have taken my social position from The Left, which is Social liberalism. I have taken my civil liberties from an all across the spectrum, which is Civil libertarianism. And I have taken my foreign policy position from the both The Right and The Left to make Anti-Globalization and Neutrality.

It works well for me and it is not one sided. I will give you some examples:

ECONOMIC

Support welfare state
Support tariffs on imports
Support immigration restrictions
Support lower taxes
Support nationalization

SOCIAL

Support gay marriage
Support abortion
Support secularism
Support legalized drugs
Support cultural conservatism

LIBERTY

Oppose censorship of anything
Oppose Patriot Act
Oppose any invasion of privacy
Oppose restrictions on the press
Oppose the draft

FOREIGN

Oppose America in ANY international organization
Oppose imperialism and colonialism
Oppose Free-Trade
Oppose Globalization
Support limits on immigration from non-western nations


Those are things which anyone can combine. There's no need to stick solely with just one ideology or position. I identify with many on the 'Far-Right' and the 'Left'. I support the Right-wing parties of

Swedish Democrats, True Finns, Party for Freedom, Jobbik, Freedom Party of Austria

and the Left-wing parties of

The Left Party, New Anticapitalist Party, Socialist Party of the Netherlands, Socialist People's Party


As long as the party shows that it will fight for the nation and the workers, that is what I support.

reply to post by Misoir


i like your interpretations and i agree with your standpoints even if minor details could differ. I like how you spread it out right to left economically and socially which i agree with.

i just want to get rid of the the bias in our country so that it can function more fluently. these concepts i'm working on but it covers so many different fields that the research is going to take a long time to finalize, which is why i made this thread so i can collaborate with other intellectual individuals.

Hopefully this isn't off topic. I'm curious what are the requirements you had to do before do political science. I'm a political junkie and history nut. It's my passion and I would do politics in the future.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Sounds Great , Good Luck with that . A bit of Advice though , please stay Way Clear of the Progressive Liberal Philosophy , it could oneday come back to bit you in the arse.....

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


I can say about the Conservative movements as well. You do know progressivism is not the same as Liberalism?
Progressivis Liberal

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


" but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long. "


In other words a " Gray Area " subject to the Uncertainty Principle . Hmm........ No Thanks .

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


I would go to the twilight side (not the movie)
We need to unite; then divide. Everyone is going to have different views in life so why should we barricade ourselves because of political ideology?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Because there will Always be the " Haves" and the " Have Nots " in the Eternal Struggle for Survival . Social Darwinism Lives ....Unfortunately............Sigh .

Hey great thread! S&F!

I am also going to school for Poli-sci. I like what Misor wrote and what a few others wrote as well. I do not think any 'one' ideology nor political group has the total package. I also like SOME of the conservative ideas for economic issues, and SOME of the liberal ideas for societal issues. But I cannot solely support either because they are both subject to flaws caused by historical nature. In fact, I do not subscribe to any ideology, as I dislike labels since they are subject to misinterpretation, misrepresentation and can be polluted far to easily. I know, what am I going to do with a poli-sci degree? Lol, sometimes I ask myself the same thing. I'm just following my heart.

I recently attended a Socialist's meeting, and liked a lot of what they were talking about, but again I do not subscribe to them and cannot consider myself a socialist because there are too many definitions and perceptions of what that means. Some of what they said seemed very spot on and idealistic, but there are also so many things I see in it that can turn it into something even worse than Democracy. And a lot of it just seems unrealistic.

I also just got done studying about Democracy and Capitalism, and I am convinced that not only is it not sustainable nor is it a fair, healthy or peaceful ideology, but I also do not believe we have ever seen a true Democracy in human history, but that is a whole other subject that I could write a book about. The reason a Democracy can never be equal, just or fair, is because potentially 49% of the people under it are always at a disadvantage and are stuck without a voice or say into the matter at hand. And in fact that number is much higher, maybe closer to 69%, since many of disadvantaged people are not voting. So in turn, the top 30% of the wealthiest people are dictating how the rest of the nation should live and what rights they should receive. Also, Democracies put all other non-democratic nations at a economic disadvantage, and thrive off of exploiting their resources in order to survive. Thus, it is impossible to have the entire world governed by Democracy which leaves the innevitability of war looming over our heads constantly. Another thing is that a Democracy calls for all the people in a nation to be politically aware and active, since it is a "Government by the people", and if we want healthy and strong industries and workforces than this is realistically not possible. Citizens cannot work all day, use all their intellect to progress our society and industries, insofar as innovate new technological, scientific and societal ideas, and also be well informed, aware and active politically. This is not realistically possible. Plato's "republic" is one of the first to mention and describe this as being true.

All in all, I think it will take many open minded people, much like ourselves, to selflessly contemplate on these issues and decide what is the best direction we should be heading. Change will come from the Grassroots level, not from above.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Purely publicly funded campaigns. Don't make it an option like Obama and McCain had to 'take the public funds' or open the door for hundreds of millions from corporate donors. Some may call it a violation of freedom of speech via "Citizens United." But through this model you'd be restricting even the poorest welfare mom from giving $5 to her favorite candidate, its an across the bored restriction similar to the current ($2500?) individual donation limit already upheld.

There, no more corporate donations, or any donations, just tax dollars. This would be good too because since the amount of money would be smaller, candidates would be forced to participate in more debates and actual displays of knowledge and discourse with their opponent rather than relying on massive and excessive propaganda campaigns.

The only other problem I can see is that you really can't stop individuals, like corporations, from waging their own private media campaigns. But I don't think that'd be an issue, because most companies donate equally to both campaigns. Its a nice, quiet, check writing process that allows you to call up favors from both sides of the aisle. When you'd force corporations to show their support through actual tv ads and private campaigning you'd force them to take sides, which would look ridiculous to have 2 commercials back to back from the same company supporting 2 different opposing politicians. So my guess is corporations would just challenge the new donations law in the courts and then quietly fade into the night as far as electioneering goes.

Thank you everyone for you input, it seems a lot of us here agree on a lot points.

I the change that is necessary for this country to flourish properly again is to unite the like minded individuals of the next generation in power. the one's who think for themselves and gain their opinions based upon their own experiences. we need major political reform and countless of numbers of ways. This won't happen properly if our country continues in the way it operates. for the change to come about successfully we need a grass roots movement so to say. the change won't come if we follow main stream media and political ideology. if we can get past all this biased and act as human beings rather than republicans democrats liberals or conservatives and etc. we can achieve a common goal.

I think a new bill of rights needs to be written along with the current one. this bill of rights needs to protect the rights of the people about the issues of the current day in age. The social issues must first be identified then a common solution can manifest.